Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

tcd004 writes "There was a close call last week when an enormous coronal ejection nearly hit Mercury and the orbiting Messenger spacecraft. Scientists at the Space Weather Laboratory flew into action, modeling the event to determine how close it had come to the spacecraft using data from the twin STEREO sun observers. The group used an animated model called WSA-ENLIL, named after a Sumerian lord of wind and storms. Enlil, who wears a crown of horns, is known for being a kind but also cruel god who sends forth disasters, including a great flood that wiped out humanity. Fortunately Messenger escaped Enlil's wrath."

I might not be able to tell you exactly how this will benefit you, but in general more knowledge is never a bad thing. Consider the huge number of products and ideas that we use everyday that came from accidents or people just playing around (rubber, penicillin, and superglue, to name a few).

War, on the other hand, serves no creative purpose, but only destroys. I would ask you how we can continue to justify several different military actions during a recession.

One more thing: first, consider NASA's budget which is 0.6% of the federal budget. Now consider the Department of Defense's budget, which is 19%. (Both of these numbers are straight from Wikipedia for 2010.) I can't justify spending 32 times as much on wars that will only serve to kill people and create a worldwide hatred of America as we spend on our space program. It doesn't make any sense to me.

War, on the other hand, serves no creative purpose, but only destroys. I would ask you how we can continue to justify several different military actions during a recession.

Its not politically correct nor a popular notion, but massive technology and societal improvements are the direct result of war. To deny this is to admit one doesn't know history. And contrary to your assertion, war is frequently fueled by massive levels of creativity. Almost everything you take for granted in modern life, either directly or indirectly, can be attributed to war.

That's the way it's been, however that's not because of any particular rule. It's more because it's easier to get funding to blow something up than to do something productive. People tend to be more willing to open their purses for something that they feel is in their interest, particularly if it helps them avoid something that scares them.

Societies that have other values tend to have other routes to developing technology. Ones which value agriculture tend to poor their resources there and into things which are related.

"Its not politically correct nor a popular notion, but massive technology and societal improvements are the direct result of war. To deny this is to admit one doesn't know history."

I have a bit of a grasp on History and I plainly deny that: the only direct result of war is people being killed. Everything else are indirect results and, as such, they could have been gotten by other ways -without the killing.

Adscribing technology and social advance to wars as if it were the only way to achieve those results j

You seem to be talking around in circles without a coherent statement.

I have a bit of a grasp on History and I plainly deny that: the only direct result of war is people being killed

Well, by you're own admission, you just contradicted yourself. Factually, history completely disagrees with you. The fact you state you know history and then directly contradict history to make your point, entirely invalidates your point as well as your credibility.

Everything else are indirect results and, as such, they could have been gotten by other ways -without the killing.

I never said they couldn't be obtained in a world of purely research driven science. But no one lives in that world. No one. Furthermore, its true that some advancements may ev

Actually? Then you can easily point me to the war started "to the advancement of Science and Technology", can you?

"I never said they couldn't be obtained in a world of purely research driven science."

Yes you did, since you pointed technology advancement as a direct outcome of war while the truth is that those advencements, except maybe for the case of weaponry development are just side effects that, by your own account could be achieved by other means with

What massive technological improvements did we see as a result of the 6 day war?

Nice try in idiocy and trolling. Factually, the 6-day war was also deemed the end of tank warfare and the return to massive civilian deaths. As a result of such proclamations, the state of the art in metallurgy and material sciences received a boost. The resulting research has made advances to almost everything you see as "modern" today. Not to mention, composite armors are now standard fair on main battle tanks which means dramatically extended lives for tank crews.

The bigger issue is that as soon as you start putting that kind of money into the DoD people want to see the military do something. Libya is a much better user of resources than Iraq was, albeit, a much cheaper conflict to get involved in. Even if they don't give us access to their resources, having an unstable regime headed by a dictator isn't in our best interest.

There's also the issue of the things which are going unfunded so that we can devote that much money to the defense department. Things like prope

The bigger issue is that as soon as you start putting that kind of money into the DoD people want to see the military do something.

Why put the money into DoD at all?

Libya is a much better user of resources than Iraq was, albeit, a much cheaper conflict to get involved in. Even if they don't give us access to their resources, having an unstable regime headed by a dictator isn't in our best interest.

Violating sovereignty of another nation state (even the one led by an unstable dictator) is in the interest of the world's "pinnacle of freedom and democracy"? Taking sides in an internal conflict is right and justified? I don't remember the United States being so proactive during the war in my homeland. In fact, I remember certain embargoes while we were attacked. It must be just my memory.

For some reason, my logic must be screwed up as well, since I don't see anyone talki

I don't remember the United States being so proactive during the war in my homeland. In fact, I remember certain embargoes while we were attacked. It must be just my memory.

The embargoes affected everyone in the former Yugoslavia including Serbia and Montenegro. It's just unfortunate that the victims were more strongly affected than the aggressors. But that's how conflicts are peacefully resolved. Big fish eats little fish.

The embargoes affected everyone in the former Yugoslavia including Serbia and Montenegro.

Which, even despite I'm in one of the attacked countries, does not make me happy.

It's just unfortunate that the victims were more strongly affected than the aggressors. But that's how conflicts are peacefully resolved. Big fish eats little fish.

Rather odd way at looking at things. Denying defensive weaponry and other things to build up a resistance surely is an effective way to resolve a conflict. Because then it cannot even be called a conflict; if there's only one properly armed side, how can you call it a conflict?

If you however think there is someone who is defending himself, and has a right to defend himself, just help or don't interfere. Imposing a weapon import

If you however think there is someone who is defending himself, and has a right to defend himself, just help or don't interfere. Imposing a weapon import embargo on a state that cannot defend itself means its citizens will be "dealt with" by the other side.

Any silver tongued politician could have told you that they were "helping" not just "interfering". This sort of game is played whenever there is concern about evils committed somewhere, but nobody in power wants to be at risk from doing something concrete. Games were played in the days prior to the Second World War and in Cambodia and Rwanda. Evil was allowed to fester and grow.

This is why I consider a military as more than a thing that breaks things, kills people, and destroys societies. There are alway

The ultimate goal of any intervention in arab countries is stabilization. Destabilization invites war, particularly nasty war when Muslim dominated nations with what is considered a decent military for the region are so close to Israel.

Everything always must come down to Israel, doesn't it? This seems like an ironic twist on the Godwin's Law.

United States is on the other side of the world compared to the Middle East. It is not directly threatened. Israel does not seem like a natural ally. United States is not threatened militarily and it's not really threatened by the Middle Eastern countries at all, and should not look at small countries as its allies. United States should feel much more threatened by the China.

The US wasn't threatened militarily in Korea or Vietnam, either. Israel is small, but influential with a very strong military and they are a nuclear power(supposedly). They also have the itchiest trigger finger. If Israel goes to full-scale war, it will send the whole region down the shitter and invite countries like Russia to get involved since they do a lot of business with other countries in the region(thus protecting their interests, same thing the US does). Israel only comes up because it is one of

The US wasn't threatened militarily in Korea or Vietnam, either. Israel is small, but influential with a very strong military and they are a nuclear power(supposedly).

Who gave them that?

They also have the itchiest trigger finger. If Israel goes to full-scale war, it will send the whole region down the shitter

Are you saying that Israel is the problem? I am not that actively tracking the status in the region, but they never seemed like a major troublemaker to me. If they are, what is the logic in destroying everyone around them?

and invite countries like Russia to get involved since they do a lot of business with other countries in the region(thus protecting their interests, same thing the US does).

Russia is not half-way around the world.

Israel only comes up because it is one of the reasons why countries like the US intervene. Ultimately, you want to keep the issues within the country. Manageable. The larger the conflict within the country, the greater the potential for it to spread. Israel is attached because of that, but so are other countries that major countries have major interests in

I'm afraid I do not understand how all this justifies entering the conflict in Libya. If Gaddafi was mad enough to openly attack Israel, he had over 40 years to do so. I'm also not sure that bringing US' "sons of bitches" into powe

""prevention of war" by going to war? And you said that with a straight face?"

Not that I share such an opinion, but you can bet khallow is not the first one to try that path: did you never heard about the Latin saying 'si vis pacem para bellum', or its "original" from Vegetius 'Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum'.

There's a big difference between being the biggest, toughest kid on the playground that no one wants to mess with because they *know* they will get pummeled if they try, and being the bully on the playground who goes around picking fights.

19% is spent on the prevention of war? Well, that's money out the window. How many wars are you guys involved in now? Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan. Might as well take that 19% and spend it on something useful.

Where do you think the money is spent? The paychecks of thousands of people are directly related to spaceflight -- your neighbors and mine. The programs themselves buy products of every description, from commodities like gases and metals to highly engineered and specialized electronics and mechanical assemblies, from companies both large and small -- not to mention the services of a wide range of people, from painters to software engineers.

To be sure, in the case of MESSENGER; but IMHO the GP was asking about policy, not an implementation: He mentions "these vehicles" and "these expensive ventures", yet there is only one MESSENGER spacecraft.

Absolutely not. We need that money to fund more pointless never-ending wars like the ones on drugs and terrorism. We need to be researching less invasive ways to invade the privacy of citizens, so we can make the nation secure without anyone realizing that we're doing it by monitoring them 24/7. We need bigger CEO bonuses so that the wealthy can make all the rest of us happier by keeping the money that doesn't buy happiness. We need to route more money through the political process in case someone there

Apart from the knowledge we obtain? Well no. Duh. The knowledge we obtain from these vehicles is the only benefit anyone ever intended or expected to get from them, so if you deliberately exclude that from the calculations, then of course we can't justify it.

Apart from the knowledge we obtain from these vehicles...can we justify these expensive ventures in these recession times?

Apart from the knowledge we obtain from this sort of endeavor...can we justify the value of the human race? Seriously, this is the goal. Everything we've done and all of our efforts as a species it lead up to this sort of exploration of the frontiers of science, astronomy, and meaning. If we don't do something other than reproduce and advertise, if we're only interested in looking inward and never outward, why do we even need to exist?

Some of us actually come here for the science stories. Anyone with even a minimal understanding of the amount of money MESSENGER requires in comparison to the federal budget overall can see your concern is facetious. Please take your lame political trolling to an iDevice "story" and leave us nerds in peace.

How exactly does one get to be "kind" and "cruel" at the same time? God or no god. How does that work?He cruelly cuts people's breaks and then he kindly saves them from their burning cars?Or does he give gifts - that also have a random chance of killing their recipient?

There's a lot of the aspects of weather or climate personified into Enlil - he makes the plants grow, but he also sends devastating floods. Guess this unpredictable ambivalence is what they point at with "cruel and kind" here. Enlil is actually pretty badass, but with a strong schizophrenic tendency. First he helps create mankind, then he tries to wipe them with a flood, because they make too much noise. Utnapishtim - the Noah-equivalent of Sumerian mythos - does the whole ark thing, and hey, Enlil has anot

I wonder if stuff like that has the potential to change orbits of plants. If the Sun were to push itself enough out of position everything circling it would begin to have irregular orbits around it and things could get really bad.

I think our plants will be fine. Also, the sun is HUGE, the distance between planets is HUGE, its not like changing the velocity of the sun will suddenly cause all kinds of collisions to take place as we're orbiting. Basically you're worried over what happens when an ant gets catapulted off the earth.

Nah, pretty sure the news at the time was outside. Which is fine. There were oxygen leaks, resulting in air surrounding Mir. Further, as NASA demonstrated at the ISS, some bacteria and mold can handle hard radiation just fine.

I hope the commenter above who wonders whether the expense is worth the knowledge reads this comment and shudders to think how much worse it would be if everyone's grasp of physics were this fingerless. It's bad enough we have *one* Alabama.

I'm sorry to pick on you, self-professed fan of loud music, but something that ignorant of the physical processes of the Universe just friggin hurts. To quote an old physics gent: That's not right. It's not even wrong.

You get his idea though: if you're standing in the center of a 100% frictionless frozen pond in a vacuum, you have no way of progressing forward. So if you actually want to get off the pond what do you do? You take off your mitten and toss it in the opposite direction. Or, if you're the sun, you have a coronal ejection, spewing pieces of yourself into the void.

This could, conceivably, move the sun. And yes, the planets wouldn't just follow along with it automagically -- they have their own momentum as w

I'm likely not thinking of something physically obvious, so please point me in the right direction in the usual generous slashdot manner.

The most physically obvious thing you are overlooking is the amount of material in a CME. Even at their most violent a CME would be hard pressed to top 1e-20 of the Sun's mass, which would mean that with an eruption speed topping 3000 km/sec the most kick it could give would change the Sun's speed by less than the radius of a hydrogen atom per hour.

So, to follow your analogy, it is not so much like throwing your mitten in the opposite direction than it is trying to jet your way to the bank by a single, unenthusiastic fart. Which, as a strategy, is pretty close to the usual generous slashdot manner.

So, to follow your analogy, it is not so much like throwing your mitten in the opposite direction than it is trying to jet your way to the bank by a single, unenthusiastic fart. Which, as a strategy, is pretty close to the usual generous slashdot manner.

"Jesus, there was another one of those? How many does that make for humanity?"

I'm doing a small portion of His light work today...

It depends on where you live.

"The multiple flood hypothesis was first proposed by R.B. Wiatt, Jr., in 1980. Wiatt argued for a sequence of multiple floods â" 40 or more.[11][12][13] Wiatt's proposal was based mainly on analysis from glacial lake bottom deposits in Ninemile Creek and the flood deposits in Burlingame Canyon. His most compelling argument for separate floods was

It's the same on - that's where the Hebrews ripped the story off. Interesting difference in reasoning though - God nukes the world for sinfulness and shit, Enlil goes about it because the little fuckers he helped create make too much of a ruckus and disturb his peaceful universe.

Goddard's Community Coordinated Modeling Center just released a space weather app that lets you track solar activity in real-time. It also has data and simulation predictions for the solar surface, the solar wind, and Earth's magnetosphere/ionosphere. Really slick interface too:)
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nasa-space-weather/id422621403?mt=8 [apple.com]

For those that avoid apple and want to use computers; you can view the model predictions with the 'iNTEGRATED SPACE WEATHER ANALYSIS SYSTEM' which is very cross platform and browser: http://iswa.gsfc.nasa.gov/iswa/iSWA.html [nasa.gov] , look under the "Events" tab.

I don't know enough about this story, as I was out of town all last week. (I do IT support for the solar missions that were mentioned)

STEREO and SDO have 'space weather' feeds, where they get data in near-real time. As CMEs are slow moving (can take a day to reach earth), we actually *do* have advance warning about them, and many of the near-earth spacecraft can be told to go into some sort of a protective mode (eg, turn so they don't take the full brunt of it).